Pages

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Pants

The idea of
dressing up for worship is an old one, and a common one in most Christian
churches, though more and more churches these days have adopted a
come-as-you-are attitude that encourages people to come to church with a focus
on worship and not on the dress of those around them. I have no problem with this, because I’m most
comfortable in jeans and t-shirts every day of the week.

However, I
also really love the idea of dressing our best for the Lord. As someone who wears jeans and t-shirts every
day of the week, I enjoy making a distinction on the day that is set aside for
worship. Sunday is a special day,
separate from the rest of the week, and when I put on my “Sunday best”, it’s
helping me to make that distinction.

I own a very
nice pair of gray slacks. I bought them
years ago to wear to work, and I pull them out every once in a great while now
that I no longer have a job that requires business casual attire. I also own a denim skirt, which is very
clearly denim (in other words, not so dark it could be mistaken for navy
cotton). It is socially acceptable (within
the Church) for me to wear my denim skirt to church, but not my gray
slacks. Why is this? If we are supposed to wear our very best for
the Lord, why is it acceptable for me to wear something that would be rejected
at most jobs that require people to dress up (for example, can you imagine a female
senator or governor showing up for work in a denim skirt?), but it is not acceptable
for me to wear pants that are much more dressy?

A group of women have organized this Sunday, December 16, as “Wear Pants to Church Day”. They are encouraging women to take this tiny
baby step toward a little more equality in the Church and wear “...not jeans,
or sweats, or yoga pants, but dress pants. Tailored suits and flowing shalwars
and holiday-appropriate black velvet. Pants that are modest, elegant, and
feminine, and not at all out of place in a church house (not that we think you
need to be any of those things to worship God!).”

Their
purpose for this event? “…to give voice
to and express support for women who don’t conform to traditional gender roles
and those who seek gender equality in the LDS church.” There are those of us out there who, for
whatever reason, don’t fit in to the traditional gender roles defined by the
Church. Women who feel uncomfortable at
church. Some may still continue to attend,
some may not. Everyone has their
struggles, and until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes, it’s wrong to judge
them.

I guess now
is a good time for me to come out and say it: I am a feminist.

I’m also a
Mormon. It’s kind of an awkward place to
be.

Now, before
folks go getting all riled up, I’d like to address the term “feminist”. See, there are certain individuals out there
with a public presence who try to silence women, especially strong women, by distorting
the message of feminism, and calling us belittling names like “femi-nazi”. We are not demanding to be the same as
men. We are not trying to take rights
away from men, or to make the world entirely gender-neutral. I’m proud to be a woman and happy to be
different from men. What I’m hoping for,
and praying for, is the equality that should be extended to all of God’s
children, regardless of race, religion, or gender - the equality that is
lacking in so many places and points of view.
As Sandra Ford said in her recent
post on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

"We envision
a world where we can participate fully in our religion, where we are afforded
the same opportunities as our fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons: a place
where programs for girls receive funding on par programs for boys; a place
where young women are encouraged to serve missions on the same terms as young
men; a place where women can finish their schooling without being criticized
for putting off marriage and pursue careers without being condemned for
abandoning the home; a place where mothers can bless their sick children and
preside alongside their husbands in the home; a place where our spiritual
progress is based on our worth as individuals, rather than on our relationships
to the men around us."

I like being
a woman; I don’t want to be a man. I don’t
want to be better than the men around me.
I don’t want to have more than them, or be above them in any way. I simply want to be equal.

I consider
us a feminist family. Ask Chris; he’ll
say the same. (In fact, sometimes I
think he’s more of a feminist than I am.)
With three daughters, it’s important to both of us that they grow up to
be strong, independent women, that they are sure of themselves and comfortable with
who they are.

This is not
about the Priesthood. Over and over in the
Church, women are placed second to men. The
budget for youth programs for girls is much smaller than it is for boys (the Young
Men and Young Women programs generally have the same budget, but the Scouts
often have an additional, separate budget even though they fund the same boys; Cub
Scouts get a rather large portion of the Primary budget, but the Activity Days
girls don’t generally get a budget at all).
I was fortunate enough to grow up in a part of the world where the Boy
Scout program was not part of the youth program at church, so our activities
were pretty similar, but I dread the day when Vicki, who would spend all summer
at camp if we let her, realizes how many camping trips the boys take and how
much more money is spent on them compared to the girls. This is one reason why we will continue with
the Girl Scout program in addition to the Church programs, at least as long as our
girls want to. Women do not give the
prayers in General Conference, though two or three may speak over the course of
the four general sessions. The
Priesthood session takes place the same weekend as the general sessions, twice
a year, but the sessions that are specific to women take place the weekend
before, are referred to as “broadcasts” rather than “sessions”, and alternate
between the Relief Society in the fall and the Young Women in the spring. Women are not called to positions such as
Ward Clerk or Sunday School President, even though neither of those callings is
a Priesthood position.

The fact
that women do not hold the Priesthood in our church is not why I will be
wearing pants to church on Sunday.
Maybe women will hold the Priesthood one day, maybe they won’t. But I hope one day my daughters will be able
to walk into church in a nice pair of slacks, maybe chat with the people in the
next pew about the beautiful prayer Sister So-and-so gave last week in General
Conference, and then send their daughters off to Young Women, where they’ll
make plans for their next camping trip.

I believe in
a loving Savior who knows me as an individual and loves me for who I am and who
I want to become. He knows my strengths and my weaknesses, and,
most importantly, He knows my heart. His
Gospel is a gospel of love, of understanding, of forgiveness and mercy. When I show up in Church on Sunday in my gray
slacks, I believe He will understand why I am wearing them, and He will be
proud of me.

31 comments:

I don't really care about budgets or pants or general conference prayers - maybe I should care, but I can't pretend to feel something I don't. I do care that my daughters are as strong in the doctrine as they are in their temple wedding dress plans. Elly was the first of my children to memorize all 13 articles of faith and I was soooo proud of her!

Oh, I have to agree that girls camp can be really lame compared to scout camp. I had an awesome camp in Michigan, but super lame ones in PA and NJ.

I should do my own blog post on this. I used to have all kinds of issues as a teenager and even going to school out west, where some of the mormon culture freaked me out a bit. I am glad I went through it, because now I feel more solid as an LDS woman than ever and I know what I want to pass on to my daughters.

Everyone has their things to get fired up about. Just because this is mine, doesn't mean it has to be yours :) I would love to read a blog post you write about this! Everyone has different experiences that lead them to different places, and since you have clearly been on a journey since we last saw each other (if I recall correctly, you were the feminist democrat back then), I would love to hear about it.

Comments like this make me feel as if you didn't read the entire post. I don't know if this is true, but if what you got out of it was that my reasoning for equality in the Church is solely based on budgeting, then you definitely missed the majority of what I said.

There are many, many reasons why women in the Church feel that they are regarded as unequal to men - the amount of money allotted to girls' and womens' programs is just one.

I respect your right to make the choices you do based on your understanding of the Gospel and only ask that you do the same for me: respect my choices based on my understanding.

I'm with Danielle, maybe I should care about pants or general conference prayers but I don't and can't pretend to feel something that I don't. I do care that my daughters have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His love for them.

I do agree about girls camp because I always wanted to go on the cool camps the boys did. But after my mom became stake YW president she tried to organize some of those kinds of events(after years, and years of hearing me complain). The problem? None of the leaders wanted to do it! At least in the ward we live in now the YW hike the Zion Narrows for part of girls camp!

Like I said to Danielle, everyone has their things to get fired up about, and this is mine, but it's okay with me if it's not yours :) I'll still love you. And, yeah, it's possible that part of the problem is that the leaders don't want to deal with camping and stuff, but then it would be stereotyping to assume that the boys get more of that just because their leaders are more into it. Sigh. Who really knows? All I know is that Vicki is now 12 and as soon as she finds out how often the YM in our ward go camping compared to the YW, she's going to have fits. Our Stake YW pres. likes outdoorsy stuff, so there's hope, but it still won't be the same. Thank goodness for the Girl Scouts!

I find it interesting that a lot of people get really uptight when someone challenges the church's culture. The culture, mind you, not the doctrine. (I even find myself doing it sometimes, too.) If you know the church is true, why do you get so defensive about it? It's not your place to defend. It's your place to love and care, people!! Okay, off my soap box now.

Though, this reminds me of my favorite Allie quote ever:"I'M NOT WEARING ANY PANTS!!!!" I shall be hearing you say that all day on Sunday except I'll change it to: "I'M JUST WEARING PANTS!!"

I don't feel I was uptight or defensive (or unloving and uncaring). I am not even sure how any of these comments are defensive. I was actually quite enjoying all of this - checking in and out all day for additional comments.

Danielle, I hope you come back and see Carrie's comment further down - she didn't mean you personally, but the general you. None of these comments have been defensive, but there has been a great deal of defensiveness in other places, and I think that what she was talking about.

Though I do not agree with the entire post, I feel that you make some valid points. I applaud you for speaking honestly and openly knowing that others will criticize your opinions. It takes great strength to stand apart from the crowd. I think that your daughters should be proud to have a mother who voices her beliefs with dignity, and does not apologize for the way she feels. Very well thought out post, thank you for sharing.

Danielle, I can see how my response could have been viewed as commenting on the previous responses. Sorry about that. I don't think you sounded uptight or defensive. A lot of people, in general, act that way or attack those with differing views and that was what I was referring to.

Thanks Allie! Awesomeness must just run in the family. :) Now was it your mom who came in the room right after you yelled that choice phrase or was that the time when Jen was yelling "WELCOME TO HELL!!"? So many memories, they get all jumbled...

Ok, so here is my entirely inappropriate and slightly man hating response. I think men need more help then women. I think men are more easily led off the straight and narrow path. Think of how many single moms we have, even in the church. Men need more responsibility, more consistent redirection, etc. If there is an inequality between men and women it is that women are more easily able to see the bigger picture, make selfless choices, and be more Christlike. That's why men have more "sessions" and more camping trips and more money. And I don't think it's just me that feels this way. I think God agrees. ( yes, I did just say that. Wow. So self righteous, but I like it!) God makes the major decisions for His church. There is a reason why He does what He does and it is not easy to understand and rarely seems fair. Just like our kids don't understand the bigger picture when we make "unfair" choices, maybe we don't see the bigger picture when He makes " unfair" choices. And maybe I'm completely wrong about everything. That's ok, too. As for the pants, I vote we don't nudge the door open with dress slacks. Lets kick it down so I can wear my penguin pajamas! ( and yes, they are special and beautiful, in case you were wondering)

I don't think I'd agree with this at all. But I respect your right to think it :)

I do agree with the comparison about our kids and not seeing the bigger picture, and I actually had something similar to that in this post originally (can't remember why I took it out, but this was originally four pages long, single-spaced, so be grateful that I did). But I think my point in using that analogy was that my kids appreciate it more when I acknowledge that things are unfair, and empathize with them about it, even though it's not going to change anything right then. So I would prefer that, rather than making trite statements about how special and wonderful and totally awesome and pedestal-worthy women are while ignoring our cries of "it's not fair!" (so to speak), the Church would just come out and say, "Yes, we know things are not equal. We're sorry about that, but it's the way it is right now. And we can't tell you if that's going to change any time soon, or even at all, but we hear you and we love you and we're here for you to talk to if you need it." Does that make sense? I feel like God says that to me, but I don't feel like the Church does.

This topic has been confusing me ever since I heard it a couple days ago. I guess I've never felt that there was so much inequality in the LDS church. Of course there's always the Priesthood argument, but that's not going to change - ever - so I'm glad that you posted some other points that would help someone such as myself to see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps I could throw in my own perspective to the topic, although I realize that in doing so I'm just giving the opinion of a man and I'm supposed to be the offender in this situation. But, here goes... I believe that women, for the most part, do a better job in the home. There, I said it. Women tend to be better at raising children than men. That isn't a blanket statement, but I am saying that women have talents in that arena that most men just seem to lack. I do think, however, that it's very important for women to gain an education, and contribute to society in a role that's outside the home. The more we all contribute, the better. Just don't be ashamed to be at home with the kids. That takes quite a bit of courage in this world of materialism. In regards to spiritual progression being tied to men... Women are far more spiritually progressed than men could ever hope to be. I found an amazing woman to marry, and I find myself clutching on to her spiritual coattails in an effort to somewhat stay in good standings before the big guy upstairs. She needs no help from me in the spiritual department. You mention the budget for girls as compared to boys. I don't know what kind of budget the women get for girls camp, but I can tell you that the girls camp (in my experience) is The Hilton compared to what the boys get. The girls camp is also just about as much camping as the vast majority of the girls could stand. When it's over, the girls are'finished' with the outdoors. I can't imagine most of them wanting to do it again a few months later - let alone camp out in the snow in January. Some would, and that's great. It's just difficult to form a program around a few girls that would like more of that experience. We do plenty of that as a family, so in general I'm not relying on the church, or scouts, to give my kids an outdoor experience. While I'm on girls camp, I would sure like to see the boys get their own personal cooking staff to follow them up to camp... and perhaps the RS could come up and set things up for them... and take it down when the week is over.

...cont. You also mention talks in General Conference. Most are by men, but that's just a percentage reflection to how many men serve as general authorities. These are Priesthood callings, filled by men. If we had to hear 50% women talk in GC, then they'd all be giving talks every 6 months. I don't know why they don't say prayers in GC. Never thought about it. It's a good question though. Moving on to Priesthood "session" and Relief Society "broadcast" - I don't know why they have them on different weekends or why they're called by different names. What I do know is that the RS gets dinner served before their broadcast, and the men have to serve it. The men get no such favors the following weekend, nor do they get the budget for something as simple as ice cream. You mention that women are also not called as Sunday School President, but that brings up the point of men never being called in the Primary presidency. Why? I don't know, but that seems like 6's to me. If everything were "equal" in the church, then the RS would build/mend fences that have fallen over, cut down a broken tree, and move-in-out families in the ward, etc. The EQ would serve dinners to women that just gave birth, or are otherwise in need of some assistance in the home. The walks would be cleared of snow by the RS and YW before, and after church. The Elder's Quorum would get enough money to have quarterly dinners, rather than a token $100 each year to "figure something out." I could go on, but the men get nothing in comparison to the women when it comes to a budget for activities. In general, getting to see how the Ward Council functions, I'm convinced more and more that the women in the church "run" everything and the men just do what's recommended. It never ceases to amaze me how the ward council is informed of ward concerns (by the women), and then the men take on the task of helping the RS, Primary, and YW do whatever they'd like to do. I sure don't get that kind of help with the elder's quorum. (we also don't get to count a "hello" in the hallway as home teaching, but I digress...) In the end, I'm reminded of the term "prophetess" or, a female prophet. We know that this is a "legit" calling in the Lord's church, but it isn't something he has seen fit to introduce at this point in time. We know very little about our Heavenly Mother's role in everything. That's by design. What she does, and who she is, is too sacred to discuss or learn in detail at this point in our progression. I feel that there are many roles in the Lord's church for women that we know nothing about, and which are far too sacred for the world in which we now live. For now, I'm deeply grateful for the constant guidance that the women in my life give to me, and to the church. They keep us men busy, and on the right track. I do feel, however, that we all have different talents and roles in life. Don't ask me to cook a casserole and I won't ask you to chainsaw a tree. Sorry, this was long, and I don't think I even said all that was on my mind. Anyway, here's to wearing our nice clothes to church!

Mike, you do bring up some valid points, and I will agree that there are many things the RS do that the EQ/HPG do not. However, some of those things are cultural (and I don't get to count a "hello" in the hall as visiting teaching, either). Also, I, personally, like playing with power tools, and Chris likes to cook.

But in talking about gender equality, the argument that women are so much better than men just brings in more gender equality, in the other direction. And it really kind of feels like a token. Maybe not to everyone (most likely not, because I've had many women use that argument in the last couple of days), but it does to me and it does to many of the other women participating in this event.

And as for the statements that Heavenly Mother is too sacred to discuss...why is that? Why can't we learn about her? I would love to have a Mother in heaven as well as a Father to bring my prayers to. It would be so beautiful. I don't want roles that are "too sacred for the world in which we now live". I just want to have roles that make me feel like I am important and valued as a person in the Church, and not someone to be placed on a pedestal.

I just found this post (I wish I had seen it before I wrote mine), which details the many, many ways women in the Church feel unequal. I will be sharing this in other places as well.

Just a sidenote: we do not get a quarterly dinner in my ward. We do not get a meal before our RS broadcast. In fact, our stake pres has designated that weekend as fasting. Every yearwe are expected to drive to the stake center one hour away fasting. In contrast the men drive 15 min to the ward building for a priesthood pizza party.

I would blush beet red if there was a "pants" day declared in our ward.

Why?

Because I wear pants every Sunday.

Blink. Blink. I'm a convert, and no one has ever mentioned (or even hinted) that I should be wearing a skirt or dress.

Sure, most (maybe all? Now I'm going to be staring at everyone tomorrow!) wear skirts and dresses... but that's true in many areas of my life. In school, at work... most girls/women wear skirts and dresses at least sometimes.

It's wonderful that no one in your ward has ever hinted to you that they think you aren't dressed appropriately! That means that things are moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, not all wards are like yours. I have personally had interaction with people who are confident that "wearing our best" means, explicitly, skirts or dresses. One purpose of this is to demonstrate that pants can be our "best", too, and to show love and support for those who, like you, do not have appropriate skirts or dresses to wear.

Reconnaissance accomplished: I was 1 of 2 women (out of about 100) in my ward today wearing pants, and 1 of 5 in total (our building is split between 3 wards).

Hmmm. I think I love my ward even more, now.

It's entirely possible, however, that most people are just too durn tired to notice what other people are wearing. Graduate school + toddlers = having to use toothpicks to keep one's eyes open... and about 2/3s of each ward are grad students with young families.

Of course, most of us are beyond broke, as well. With any extra money left over after tuition and books certainly not heading for our wardrobes! (Although, is it antithetical for me to start saving up for a skirt? Hmmm. Something to ponder).

The remaining 1/3 are mostly grandparents, cutting us ALL a lot of slack.

I don't know you Allison, but I want to hug you. I want to hug everyone who has been on the receiving end of criticism this week because of PANTS. I have cried so many tears this week. People are so cruel and unwilling to open their minds.

Sorry, Allison. You're on a pedestal. You might as well get used to it. In all seriousness, I have found that, if anything, women get preferential treatment in just about every aspect. It could be scheduling conflicts, budgetary concerns, opinions given in ward council... you name it, and the ladies get first consideration. I just don't see that as a source of complaints, but it seems to come up quite a bit (even in that other website you noted). In regards the chainsaw/casserole thing... all I'm saying is that if I were to go in front of the elders and announce "alrighty, guys, as you well know, Sister Blanchart had a baby last night. I'll be passing around a signup sheet so each of you can take a turn bringing her family a meal this week," I'd be met with blank stares and probably chuckling. That isn't a church thing. I'd probably give a blank stare myself, and I even like to cook - probably more than Jodie does. I've thought about a couple things you brought up, like praying in GC or having a woman be a clerk. I don't know why, nor have I thought about, the fact that women don't pray in GC. I've never paid attention that much, I guess. It would sure be nice. In regards to a position like the clerk, he sits in on Priesthood disciplinary councils with the bishopric, so my hunch is that this might have something to do with the fact that only men are called to this position. I don't know the full answer, but it's an initial hunch. I would say that any function in the church that isn't tied to a Priesthood position should be fair game for men and women. I also feel that there are some things that are more cultural and have nothing to do with the church. That's a bigger fight to fight and I don't think it's fair to drag the church into it. Some of the comments in the forums were akin to 'the church is so messed up. why are they so dumb and ignorant......' and I don't feel that's fair. This is thousands of years of culture we're looking to reverse. It'll take some time. In respect to our Heavenly Mother, I feel we do learn about her (more than pretty much anyone on earth). I would say she has every quality of our Heavenly Father - just the female version. She participates in everything he does. They are equally yolked in their various responsibilities. I love thinking about her. I would say that we're not instructed to pray to her because there are opposites in all things. The opposite of praying to God is to curse God. I honestly feel that we'd have people cursing her, and I don't see that as something Heavenly Father wants to have happen. Anyway, I really feel we have more common ground on this that meets the eye. I just feel that there are rational explanations for many things. The others? Those can change.

Mike, Here is one thing that may help you understand more about what is going on when people say “the Church.” They don’t always mean the mythically perfect abstract “Church.” Often they mean “the second councilor in the EQ presidency who just told me I shouldn’t get a graduate degree, because you don’t need one to change diapers.” When some people say “the Church” they are not talking about an abstract organization, but about the people they interact with. And some of those people (like people everywhere) can be very ignorant, and cruel. Other people when they say “the Church” mean the abstract organization, which isn’t quite the same thing.

It is important to understand that (as should be clear from the blow back of the pants event) some people feel very threatened because some women are not happy with the way things are in the church. The problems is that many of these people try to (miss)use “doctrine” to justify patronizing behavior, cruel judgments, or lack of engagement. This makes it impossible to disentangle culture from doctrine. For many people prior to 1978, people of African descent would never, ever hold the priesthood. Some people were asking for a change, and the response from many in the church was to call for the excommunication of these “dissidents” and accuse them of trying to alter unchangeable doctrines for social convenience and disrespecting the church leaders. Now those “unchangeable” doctrines are referred to as folklore, or the product of the culture of the times. We should not accept injustice merely because we always have, regardless of how others try to defend it.

Lastly one of the most serious issues that you touched on is the idea of women in disciplinary councils. Of all the places where we need more female involvement this is where it is most urgently needed and where I believe that the lack is causing the most harm. I’ve read accounts of teen girls confessing sexual misdeeds to a Bishop then have him stand up to shake her hand as she is leaving, only to see that he has a visible erection. I’ve heard of women going in to talk to their bishop after being raped, and told they need to repent. I’ve heard of women who, after abuse, become so mistrustful of men that they cannot even bring themselves to talk to fathers, or brothers, let alone a male bishop. When the abusers are (or were) in authority positions in the church it only makes it worse. To have women to talk to female clergy is critical in situations like these. It may (or may not be) true that a man could serve just as well in these situations, if it was just a matter of his skill, or inspiration, but it isn’t. It is also about trust, and for some women in some situations, it is much, much more difficult to trust that a man can truly understand. It is easier for a victim of rape to believe that a woman is more likely to understand the dynamic of rape, it is easier for the victim of a physically abusive husband to believe that another women would understand what it is like to be physically powerless. This is why we desperately need female clergy and a robust doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. These are among the situations where I think we need to make healing as easy as possible, and that means we need female clergy.

Lastly, we are grateful for your sincere desire to understand, and your thoughtful engagement with the issues.

Even more lastly, please excuse the typos, it is late and my proofreader is asleep.

Thanks for the comments. I feel that this whole issue needs some clarification as to whether or not people are protesting the church, or protesting the behavior of morons who happen to be members of the church. They are very different things. And please don't think I would ever condone the actions of the 'men' of which you speak in the third paragraph. If the church taught and supported actions or comments such as the situations you've described, then I'd be the first one out the door. Thankfully the church teaches the opposite, and these individuals have unfortunately decided not to live in that manner. What bothers me about movements like this, is that they always end up going down the road of 'women need to hold the Priesthood' and I feel that's a very slippery road. I'm no gospel scholar, but I don't see that changing. I don't see women serving as official clergy and becoming bishops within the Melchizedek Priesthood. I just don't. I also don't see a male bishop overseeing a ward along side a female clergy member who has the same ability to make the final decision sometimes, but other times it's the bishop, etc... Organizations can't run in that manner and survive. There has to be one individual who is responsible for a specific group, and that individual is someone set apart to the office of bishop in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Changing that scenario isn't a situation I'm going to debate.

Chris, I agree with your first two paragraphs, but not some of the things in the third. However, I won't argue with you over it. You write of women you've read of and heard of, and that is not a premise I work from.

I did want to point out that women don't have to go to clergy when they have been raped or abused. It isn't a sin they need to clear up. In fact, I wouldn't at all, unless I wanted them to recommend an LDS counselor (which is what they are supposed to do according to the manual). In my experience, women turn to each other and support each other in ways that does not require an official clergy or authority position.

I do think that church leaders support the cause of women and I bet they are saddened when they hear of such abuse of authority taking place. Like you, they understand that the people and leaders are far from perfect. However, they have to see a bigger picture. They work with so many people in sin and desperate situations - they travel all over - how can they not be the greatest of humanitarians? It is so easy to say that the church needs to change this and that from our small vantage points.